Pistorius's sentence lengthened to 13 years

[Maeght]

Just to say that it worries me when sympathies lie so strongly with a killer, intentional or otherwise. Some people are very good at manipulating sympathy. This may or may not be the case here but the evidence that it was accidental didn’t hold up, hence the reason this has happened.

Which bits didn't hold up?

[jeremyp]

Which bits didn't hold up?

The claim that the shooting was accidental.

[Robbie]

It held up when he was initially convicted of manslaughter.

Manslaughter is bad, even if someone is scared by an intruder it is a serious crime to kill and they have to be punished.

[Rhiannon]

It held up when he was initially convicted of manslaughter.

Manslaughter is bad, even if someone is scared by an intruder it is a serious crime to kill and they have to be punished.

And that was subsequently overturned. Why was that a wrong decision?

[Maeght]

The claim that the shooting was accidental.

Which bits of evidence?

[Robbie]

I don't understand why. Vengeance rather than justice I suspect.

Anyway it's done now and I take the point that his sentence is reasonable given the conviction of murder.

[ProfessorDavey]

I do not dispute this. But it cannot be considered to be evidence of guilt - which appears to be Floo's view.

No - but in many cases it would be relevant evidence that would be admissible in the case as it has a bearing on the actual case being tried.

So for example in a case of domestic abuse it would be completely relevant and admissible for the prosecution to provide evidence of previous cases of violence.

[ProfessorDavey]

I don't understand why. Vengeance rather than justice I suspect.

You don't understand what? That someone convicted of murder should be provided at the very least the minimum sentence for the conviction of murder. In what way is that vengeance - it seems perfectly consistent with justice to me, indeed the only argument that is sustainable in this context is that the new sentence is still too lenient as it is still the very minimum possible. There can be no argument that it is too severe as it is the most lenient that could have been imposed.

Anyway it's done now and I take the point that his sentence is reasonable given the conviction of murder.

Then what are you arguing about.

Bottom line - he was convicted of murder and should be given a sentence consistent with that conviction.

[jeremyp]

It held up when he was initially convicted of manslaughter.

But overturned on appeal.

Manslaughter is bad, even if someone is scared by an intruder it is a serious crime to kill and they have to be punished.

It wasn't manslaughter though, it was murder.

[jeremyp]

Which bits of evidence?

The testimony of Pistorius that the shooting was accidental (i.e. his claim) is not considered to be evidence?

[ProfessorDavey]

It held up when he was initially convicted of manslaughter.

While he was convicted of manslaughter the sentence should reflect that conviction of manslaughter - but that was overturned on appeal and he was subsequently convicted of murder. Once convicted of murder his sentence must reflect that conviction - of murder - which in South Africa is a minimum of 15 years.

In fact he should consider himself extremely fortunately in receiving the most lenient sentence possible for the crime he was convicted of.

[Rhiannon]

I don't understand why. Vengeance rather than justice I suspect.

Anyway it's done now and I take the point that his sentence is reasonable given the conviction of murder.

What about justice for his victim? How can you be more certain than the judiciary that changed the verdict on appeal?

[jeremyp]

In fact he should consider himself extremely fortunately in receiving the most lenient sentence possible for the crime he was convicted of.

There were mitigating circumstances, namely he did have a legitimate fear of home invasion.

[Robbie]

What about justice for his victim? How can you be more certain than the judiciary that changed the verdict on appeal?

I am not more certain, just believe in giving the benefit of the doubt when there are doubts.
Hopefully Reeva Steenkemp's family now feel that justice has been done.

[wigginhall]

There were mitigating circumstances, namely he did have a legitimate fear of home invasion.

Yes, I wondered if in the US he would have got off, since their 'castle doctrine' (in some states, anyway), permits lethal force for home invasion.   However, I can't remember if P's defence tried this approach, but the first judge seemed sympathetic to it.   But it got muddled up with dolus eventualis, which seemed to fox many people outside SA, to do with foreseeing the results of one's actions. 

It's interesting that in the UK, a jury would be asked if they were sure, I'm not sure that I would be.   

[Walter]

That's what I think. The original trial in which he was guilty of manslaughter should have stood. I don't know what he can do now about the appalling increase in sentence. None of it brings poor Reeva back to her family. However not one of us was there.

What a dreadful waste of two lives.

only a life and a half really , he was missing his legs 

[Rhiannon]

Yes, I wondered if in the US he would have got off, since their 'castle doctrine' (in some states, anyway), permits lethal force for home invasion.   However, I can't remember if P's defence tried this approach, but the first judge seemed sympathetic to it.   But it got muddled up with dolus eventualis, which seemed to fox many people outside SA, to do with foreseeing the results of one's actions. 

It's interesting that in the UK, a jury would be asked if they were sure, I'm not sure that I would be.   

I really don’t think it’s possible to tell unless maybe you are in the same courtroom.

[wigginhall]

I really don’t think it’s possible to tell unless maybe you are in the same courtroom.

Yet plenty of people seem sure that his defence, that he thought a burglar had got in, is false.   I suppose this is based on the idea that if your girl-friend goes to the loo, you are aware of this.   Dunno.   

[floo]

Yet plenty of people seem sure that his defence, that he thought a burglar had got in, is false.   I suppose this is based on the idea that if your girl-friend goes to the loo, you are aware of this.   Dunno.

Why would a burglar be in the bathroom anyway? Surely they would grab the stuff they wish to steal and get out pdq, instead of stopping off for a comfort break?

[Robbie]

That's a point but a burglar might hear someone moving and dive into the bathroom to hide I suppose.
We'll never know for sure why it all happened.

[wigginhall]

Why would a burglar be in the bathroom anyway? Surely they would grab the stuff they wish to steal and get out pdq, instead of stopping off for a comfort break?

But that's arguing that Pistorius should have gone through a rational thought process, when he heard a noise.  His defence argued (if I'm remembering correctly), that he was terrified of home invasions, because he wouldn't be able to escape.   I think in the UK, it would be murder in any case, since killing a burglar is murder, unless they are attacking you, but not sure about SA. 

I just thought that his argument that he hadn't intended to kill her, was plausible. 

[Rhiannon]

Yet plenty of people seem sure that his defence, that he thought a burglar had got in, is false.   I suppose this is based on the idea that if your girl-friend goes to the loo, you are aware of this.   Dunno.

That’s my feeling, but it's a feeling, not a certainty.

I really don’t like the fact that sympathies seem to lie with Pistorius rather than his victim, but that could just be my perception. Victims so often get forgotten though.

[wigginhall]

That’s my feeling, but it's a feeling, not a certainty.

I really don’t like the fact that sympathies seem to lie with Pistorius rather than his victim, but that could just be my perception. Victims so often get forgotten though.

I just found it interesting, as in the US, he would probably have got off, as they have a very harsh castle doctrine, but in the UK, not, as we don't allow that, unless you are being attacked.   One of my neighbours killed a burglar, and went to jail, as the burglar  was climbing out of the window.   Of course, he's a local hero now.   

[Maeght]

The testimony of Pistorius that the shooting was accidental (i.e. his claim) is not considered to be evidence?

The original comment was that the evidence didn't hold up. Just wondered what they meant.

[wigginhall]

The defence seemed confused, didn't they?  At one point, they argued that it was an accident, but then that P thought a burglar had got in.   That doesn't add up.    Apart from that, it was a lot to do with his state of mind, which is difficult to compute.   I was surprised when the higher court ruled that he could not have feared for his life.   Why not, if he thought a burglar was there and  he is walking around on stumps?